| Revision as of 09:23, 28 April 2006 edit198.208.16.221 (talk) Quotations and Ellipses?← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:57, 28 April 2006 edit undoAdam Carr (talk | contribs)26,681 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| Danke | Danke | ||
| ] 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | ] 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I see a grand total of two elipses. The link is there for anyone who wants to read the full text. ] 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:57, 28 April 2006
Danby's preselection
- Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
- I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. Adam 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Adam, The only reason I reverted your link was that it should really be to the original source, the AFR. Is this link not available? Subscriber only? cheers, 198.208.16.221 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ellipses in quotes
Is is reasonable to provide a quotation with so many ellipses? Without going to Carr's webpage, there is no way to verify what is in the gaps. This is not necessarily aimed at this qupte in particular (though a reading of the article will determine the honesty of the selection) but a general query...
"My view is that Australia is at war," Danby wrote, "at war with a new form of totalitarian ideology as evil as the fascist and communist forms that the democracies fought during the 20th century... The enemy in this war adopts the rhetoric of Islam but it is in fact quite alien to the traditions of Islam, and particularly to the traditions of Islam as practised in Indonesia. Some call this ideology Islamofascism, others jihadism... As a social democrat, I believe in a pluralist Australia. I believe Australia should accept, and indeed welcome, migrants and refugees from all countries, including Muslim countries, and that we should prevent victimisation of Australian Muslims. I reject the view that all Australian Muslims are potential terrorists. I am always careful to distinguish Islam from the extremists who misuse it for political ends." (see link below)
Any comments? Danke 198.208.16.221 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I see a grand total of two elipses. The link is there for anyone who wants to read the full text. Adam 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)